South Dakota Dog Bite Laws Explained (One-Bite Rule)
One-Bite Rule
South Dakota's SDCL § 40-34-1 imposes strict liability on anyone who owns, keeps, or harbors a dog that injures another person. The 'keeping or harboring' language extends liability beyond the registered owner. South Dakota uses a unique 'slight/gross' negligence doctrine rather than standard modified comparative fault.
How South Dakota Dog Bite Law Works
If a dog has bitten or injured you in South Dakota, strict liability under SDCL § 40-34-1 means the law does not require you to prove the owner knew or suspected the dog was dangerous before the attack. The statute imposes liability on 'any person owning, keeping, or harboring a dog' — language that extends potential liability beyond the registered owner to any person who maintained custody or control of the animal.
The 'keeping or harboring' extension is practically significant. A house-sitter who cared for the dog during the owner's vacation, a family member who regularly provided food and shelter to the dog, or a tenant who kept the dog on a landlord's property — any of these may be a 'keeper or harborer' under § 40-34-1. Identifying all potential defendants early is an important step in every South Dakota dog bite investigation.
South Dakota's comparative fault system is unique among states on this site. Rather than the standard modified comparative fault (a percentage bar), South Dakota uses the 'slight/gross' doctrine under SDCL § 20-9-2. Recovery is barred only if the plaintiff's negligence was 'more than slight.' In strict liability dog bite cases, where the owner's fault is characterized as gross, a plaintiff's minor pre-attack conduct is typically categorized as 'slight,' preserving recovery.
The filing deadline is three years under SDCL § 15-2-14. For a minor, SDCL § 15-2-22 tolls the period during minority. Government entity claims require written notice within 180 days under SDCL § 3-21-2. Sioux Falls and Rapid City are the major population centers. Sioux Falls Animal Control (605-367-7000) and Rapid City Animal Control (605-394-4170) handle bite reports for those cities.
Non-economic damages including pain and suffering and permanent scarring are fully recoverable without a statutory cap against private defendants. South Dakota's small-state insurance market makes coverage confirmation an early step — confirm the full policy limits and any umbrella coverage before the first settlement discussion.
| Liability rule | SDCL § 40-34-1 strict liability. Extends to owners, keepers, and harborers. Unique "slight/gross" comparative negligence doctrine rather than standard percentage-based comparative fault. Three-year statute of limitations. |
|---|---|
| Governing statute | SDCL § 40-34-1 — Owner, Keeper, Harborer LiabilitySDCL § 40-34-1 |
| Deadline to file | 3 years from the date of the injurySDCL § 15-2-14 |
| If the victim is a child | SDCL § 15-2-22 tolls the limitations period during minority. A minor bitten before age 18 generally has until three years after their 18th birthday to file. |
| Shared fault | Slight/gross comparative negligence (unique to South Dakota)SDCL § 20-9-2 |
| Cap on pain & suffering | No statutory cap on non-economic damages against private defendants in South Dakota. |
| Does breed matter? | No statewide breed-specific legislation. Individual municipalities may regulate specific breeds. |
| Dangerous dog law | SDCL § 40-34-1 et seq. (general animal liability). Dangerous dog proceedings handled at the local level. |
Statute text verified against the official source linked above. General information, not legal advice.
Is South Dakota a Strict Liability State for Dog Bites?
Yes. SDCL § 40-34-1 imposes strict liability on any person owning, keeping, or harboring a dog that injures another person. No proof of prior dangerous propensity is required. South Dakota also has a unique 'slight/gross' comparative fault system that affects how victim conduct is evaluated.
South Dakota's dog bite statute, SDCL § 40-34-1, provides that 'any person owning, keeping, or harboring a dog shall be liable to any person damaged by such dog for all damages sustained.' The statute creates strict liability — an injured person does not need to prove the owner knew or suspected the dog was dangerous before the bite.
The 'keeping or harboring' language extends liability beyond the registered owner to any person who maintains control or custody of the dog. A house-sitter, a tenant, or a person who regularly feeds and cares for a dog may be a 'keeper or harborer' under this statute — an important consideration in identifying all potential defendants.
South Dakota's unique comparative fault system — the 'slight/gross' doctrine — affects how pre-attack conduct is evaluated in strict liability cases. Contributory negligence bars recovery under SDCL § 20-9-2 only if the plaintiff's negligence was 'more than slight' or the defendant's negligence was 'not gross.' For most clearly negligent dog owners under strict liability, the defendant's fault will be characterized as gross, preserving the plaintiff's claim even with some pre-attack conduct.
What Is South Dakota's Statute of Limitations for Dog Bites?
Three years from the date of injury under SDCL § 15-2-14. For a minor, SDCL § 15-2-22 tolls the period during minority. Claims against government entities require written notice within 180 days under SDCL § 3-21-2.
South Dakota's personal injury statute of limitations is three years under SDCL § 15-2-14, measured from the date of the bite. Missing this deadline forfeits the claim regardless of how clear the liability.
For a minor bitten before age 18, SDCL § 15-2-22 tolls the three-year period during minority. The period generally begins running on the minor's 18th birthday, giving a child bitten before 18 until their 21st birthday to file.
Claims against South Dakota government entities — a city police K-9, a county animal control dog — require written notice within 180 days of the injury under SDCL § 3-21-2. Missing the notice deadline can bar the claim against a government defendant even within the general three-year filing window.
How Does South Dakota's Comparative Fault Rule Work?
South Dakota uses the unique 'slight/gross' doctrine under SDCL § 20-9-2, which is different from the modified or pure comparative fault used in most states. Contributory negligence bars recovery only if the plaintiff's negligence was 'more than slight' compared to the defendant's fault.
South Dakota retained a modified version of contributory negligence through the 'slight/gross' doctrine under SDCL § 20-9-2. Recovery is barred if 'the contributory negligence of the plaintiff was more than slight.' If the plaintiff's negligence was 'slight' and the defendant's negligence was 'gross,' the plaintiff recovers but the amount is reduced.
In a dog bite strict liability case, the defendant's fault in failing to prevent the attack is typically characterized as gross — the owner knew or maintained an animal that injured someone. A plaintiff found to have engaged in minor pre-attack conduct (slow movement, incidental noise) will typically have their negligence characterized as slight, preserving recovery.
Deliberate provocation — teasing, tormenting, or striking the dog — is more likely to be characterized as 'more than slight' negligence, potentially barring recovery. The slight/gross doctrine creates more uncertainty in borderline cases than the clear percentage thresholds of modified comparative fault states.
What Can I Recover in a South Dakota Dog Bite Case?
Economic and non-economic damages are both recoverable without a statutory cap against private defendants. The 'keeping or harboring' language in SDCL § 40-34-1 may extend liability to additional defendants beyond the registered owner.
Economic damages in a South Dakota dog bite case include all documented financial losses: emergency and follow-up medical care, surgery, physical therapy, lost wages, and projected future medical costs. These are recoverable in full, subject to proof.
Non-economic damages — pain and suffering, emotional distress, permanent disfigurement and scarring, and loss of enjoyment of life — are fully recoverable without a statutory cap against private defendants. South Dakota has not enacted a cap on non-economic damages in general personal injury cases.
The 'keeping or harboring' language in SDCL § 40-34-1 potentially extends liability to house-sitters, regular caretakers, and tenants who maintained control of the dog — expanding the pool of potential defendants and available insurance beyond just the registered owner.
Red means the owner's insurer can use it against you. Green means South Dakota has closed that argument off.
| Defense | Status | How it works in South Dakota |
|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff negligence "more than slight" | Available | Under SDCL § 20-9-2, recovery is barred if plaintiff's negligence was more than slight. Deliberate provocation is the clearest example of "more than slight" negligence in a dog bite case. |
| No prior knowledge required | Not a defense | SDCL § 40-34-1 creates strict liability — the owner, keeper, or harborer cannot defend by claiming no prior knowledge of dangerous propensity. |
| Not an "owner, keeper, or harborer" | Limited | A person who had no custody or control of the dog at the time of the bite is not a "keeper or harborer." However, courts read this definition broadly. |
| Trespass | Limited | Not an explicit defense in the statute, but trespass may be assessed as comparative negligence and potentially characterized as "more than slight" if the trespass was deliberate. |
Slight/gross comparative negligence (unique to South Dakota). South Dakota uses the "slight/gross" doctrine rather than standard percentage-based comparative fault. Recovery is barred only if plaintiff's negligence was "more than slight." In strict liability cases where defendant fault is gross, most plaintiff pre-attack conduct is characterized as "slight," preserving recovery.
Example: on a claim otherwise worth $100,000, being found 30% responsible would typically leave about $70,000 — but at 50% or more, South Dakota law bars recovery entirely.
Statute of Limitations in South Dakota
Three years from the date of injury under SDCL § 15-2-14. For a minor, SDCL § 15-2-22 tolls the limitations period during minority — a child bitten before age 18 generally has until three years after their 18th birthday to file. Claims against South Dakota government entities require written notice within 180 days of the injury under SDCL § 3-21-2 — a timeline significantly shorter than the general three-year period. A bite by a Sioux Falls police K-9, a Rapid City animal control dog, or any government-owned dog must be identified against those governmental notice procedures immediately. Missing the 180-day notice deadline can bar the claim against a government defendant even within the general three-year window.
Dog bite law varies more between states than most people expect — the same attack can be a straightforward claim in one state and a difficult one across a state line.
| State | Rule | Statute | Deadline | Shared fault | What stands out |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama dog bite laws | Mixed statute | Ala. Code § 3-6-1 | 2 years | Contributory (any fault bars) | The statute reaches bites on the owner’s property only, and § 3-6-3 cuts the claim to actual expenses where the owner knew nothing about the dog. |
| Alaska dog bite laws | One-bite / negligence | No statute (AS 09.17.010 caps damages) | 2 years | Pure comparative | Non-economic damages capped at $400,000 — or $1,000,000 where the injury is severe permanent disfigurement. |
| Arizona dog bite laws | Strict liability | A.R.S. § 11-1025 | 1 year (statutory) / 2 years (negligence) | Pure comparative | Shortest deadline in the country for the statutory claim; breed cannot be considered by any legal decision-maker. |
| Arkansas dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No civil statute (Ark. Code § 5-62-125 criminal) | 3 years | Modified (50% bar) | Recovery is barred at exactly 50 percent fault, not 51 — and a minor’s window runs three years past majority. |
| California dog bite laws | Strict liability | Civ. Code § 3342 | 2 years | Pure comparative | Minor's claim tolled until age 18; cities cannot ban dogs by breed. |
| Colorado dog bite laws | Mixed statute | C.R.S. § 13-21-124 | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | Strict liability reaches economic damages only, and only on serious bodily injury. A posted "Beware of Dog" sign is a complete defense. |
| Connecticut dog bite laws | Strict liability | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-357 | 3 years (statutory) / 2 years (negligence) | Modified (51% bar) | Covers any damage a dog does, not just bites. A child under seven is presumed not to have trespassed or teased — the burden shifts to the defendant. |
| Delaware dog bite laws | Strict liability | 16 Del. C. § 3053F | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Animal control is run statewide by Delaware Animal Services rather than by each city — the only state on this site with a single centralised agency. |
| District of Columbia dog bite laws | Mixed statute | D.C. Code §§ 8-1808, 8-1812 | 3 years | Pure contributory — 1% bars all recovery | Letting a dog run at large is evidence of negligence, and lack of knowledge is no excuse — but any contributory fault at all still defeats the claim. |
| Florida dog bite laws | Strict liability | Fla. Stat. § 767.04 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | A posted "Bad Dog" sign is a complete defense — except against a child under 6. |
| Georgia dog bite laws | Mixed statute | O.C.G.A. § 51-2-7 | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | A violated local leash ordinance is by itself sufficient proof of vicious propensity. Fault bar sits at 50%, not 51%. |
| Hawaii dog bite laws | Mixed statute | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-9 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | The statute removes the scienter requirement but not the need to prove unreasonable conduct — except for animals dangerous by species or nature, where liability is absolute. |
| Idaho dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No civil statute; Idaho Code § 25-2805 (at large) | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | No strict liability statute. Recovery runs on scienter or negligence, and the fault bar sits at 50%, not 51%. |
| Illinois dog bite laws | Strict liability | 510 ILCS 5/16 | 2 years (1 year vs. a local public entity) | Modified (51% bar) | Covers attacks and attempted attacks with no bite, and "owner" includes anyone who keeps, harbors or has custody of the dog. |
| Indiana dog bite laws | Mixed statute | Ind. Code § 15-20-1-3 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Strict liability applies ONLY to people performing a duty imposed by law — mail carriers, meter readers, police. Everyone else gets the one-bite rule. |
| Iowa dog bite laws | Strict liability | Iowa Code § 351.28 | 2 years | Contributory negligence is not a defense | Unusually claimant-friendly: the only statutory defenses are that the victim was committing an unlawful act, or that the dog had rabies. |
| Kansas dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No civil statute — common-law scienter | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | No dog bite statute, and the fault bar sits at 50%. Local leash ordinances do most of the practical work in establishing negligence. |
| Kentucky dog bite laws | Strict liability | KRS 258.235(4) | 1 year | Pure comparative | The statutory definition of "owner" is broad enough to make a landlord strictly liable — Maupin v. Tankersley (Ky. 2018). Only one year to file. |
| Louisiana dog bite laws | Strict liability | La. Civ. Code art. 2321 | 2 years (1 year before 1 July 2024) | Pure comparative | A civil-law jurisdiction. Prescription doubled from one year to two on 1 July 2024, and the change applies only to injuries arising after that date. |
| Maine dog bite laws | Mixed statute | 7 M.R.S. § 3961 | 6 years | Modified (50% bar) | The longest filing deadline in the country at six years — but strict liability applies only where the dog injured you OFF the owner's premises. |
| Maryland dog bite laws | Strict liability (at large) + presumption | Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1901 | 3 years | Pure contributory (any fault bars) | Breed-neutral since a 2014 legislative reversal of Tracey v. Solesky — but pure contributory negligence stacked on genuine strict liability means any claimant fault, even 1%, can still zero out the claim. |
| Massachusetts dog bite laws | Strict liability (owners and keepers) | MGL c. 140, § 155 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Keeper liability runs against anyone temporarily caring for the dog — boarding kennels, dog walkers, pet sitters — on the same strict liability terms as the owner. Double damages are mandatory (not discretionary) where the owner had prior knowledge. |
| Michigan dog bite laws | Strict liability | MCL 287.351 | 3 years | Modified — bars non-economic damages only | Over 50% fault removes pain and suffering but not medical bills. Provocation is judged objectively, so an accidental act can count. |
| Minnesota dog bite laws | Strict liability | Minn. Stat. § 347.22 | 6 years | Modified (51% bar) | Six-year filing deadline — the longest of any strict liability state on this site. The statute covers any "attack or injury," not only bites, giving full protection to victims knocked down or injured by large dogs without being bitten. |
| Mississippi dog bite laws | One-bite rule | Miss. Code § 15-1-49 (no civil bite statute) | 3 years | Pure comparative | Mississippi is one of very few states with no civil dog bite statute — claims run on common law, requiring proof the owner knew the dog was dangerous before the attack. Mississippi's pure comparative fault rule means even a plaintiff with significant fault recovers a proportional share of damages. |
| Missouri dog bite laws | Strict liability | RSMo § 273.036 | 5 years | Pure comparative | Longest filing window on this list; minor's claim tolled to 21. |
| Montana dog bite laws | Strict liability | Mont. Code § 27-1-715 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Rural insurance market means coverage confirmation is a critical early investigation step — uninsured homeowners rates are higher in Montana than in most urban strict liability states on this site. |
| Nebraska dog bite laws | Strict liability | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 54-601 | 4 years | Modified (50% bar) | Four-year filing deadline — one of the longest of any strict liability state. § 54-601 covers "killing, wounding, injuring, worrying, or chasing" — broader than bite-only statutes. |
| Nevada dog bite laws | Negligence (no statute) | No dog bite statute — Glass v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 87 Nev. 321 (1971) | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | The only state here with no dog bite statute at all. Nevada rejected the one-bite rule in 1971 — claims run on ordinary negligence. |
| New Hampshire dog bite laws | Strict liability | RSA 466:19 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Defenses are statutory and narrow — only trespass and deliberate provocation (teasing, tormenting, abusing the dog) are complete defenses. Government entity claims require written notice within 60 days for municipal defendants under RSA 507-B:7. |
| New Jersey dog bite laws | Strict liability | N.J. Stat. § 4:19-16 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | One of the oldest strict liability statutes in the country (enacted 1933). Harboring liability extends to landlords and employers who knowingly permit a dangerous dog — both faces of the same claim, not alternatives. |
| New Mexico dog bite laws | One-bite rule | NMSA § 37-1-8 (no civil bite statute) | 3 years | Pure comparative | Government entity notice deadline is only 90 days under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (NMSA § 41-4-16) — the shortest of any state on this site. Claims run on common law with no civil dog bite statute. |
| New York dog bite laws | Mixed statute | N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 123 | 3 years | Pure comparative | Strict liability covers medical and veterinary costs only. Flanders v. Goodfellow (Apr 2025) restored ordinary negligence claims after 19 years. |
| North Carolina dog bite laws | Mixed statute | N.C.G.S. §§ 67-4.4, 67-12 | 3 years | Pure contributory — 1% bars all recovery | The harshest fault rule in the country. Any contributory negligence at all, however slight, defeats the entire claim. |
| North Dakota dog bite laws | One-bite rule | NDCC 28-01-16(5) (no civil bite statute) | 6 years | Modified (50% bar) | Six-year filing deadline — the longest personal injury window of any state on this site. Modified 50% bar means a plaintiff at exactly 50% fault recovers nothing — stricter than the 51% bar in neighboring Wyoming and New Hampshire. |
| Ohio dog bite laws | Strict liability | Ohio Rev. Code § 955.28(B) | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Liability reaches the owner, keeper AND harborer. Avery's Law (Mar 2026) added a $100,000 insurance mandate for dangerous dogs. |
| Oklahoma dog bite laws | Strict liability | 4 O.S. § 42.1 | 2 years | Modified (50% bar) | Oklahoma's comparative fault bar falls at 50% — a plaintiff found exactly 50% at fault recovers nothing. This is one percentage point more restrictive than Oregon and New Jersey, where 50% plaintiff fault still allows a half-damages recovery. |
| Oregon dog bite laws | Strict liability | ORS 31.360 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Oregon bans breed-specific ordinances statewide under ORS 609.205 — no city or county may restrict or regulate dogs by breed. The liability analysis under ORS 31.360 is fully breed-neutral. |
| Pennsylvania dog bite laws | Mixed statute | 3 P.S. § 459-502 (Dog Law) | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Strict liability covers medical costs only. Pain and suffering requires proving a "severe injury" or the dog's dangerous propensities. |
| Rhode Island dog bite laws | Strict liability | RIGL § 4-13-16 | 3 years | Pure comparative | Pure comparative fault — recovery is never barred by victim fault, regardless of the percentage. A plaintiff found 90% at fault still recovers 10% of their damages. The most plaintiff-favorable comparative fault system in New England. |
| South Carolina dog bite laws | Strict liability | S.C. Code § 47-3-110 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Keeper liability is express in the statute — liability extends to any person having the dog "in their care or keeping," making dog walkers and boarding facilities directly liable on the same strict liability terms as the registered owner. |
| South Dakota (this page) | Strict liability | SDCL § 40-34-1 | 3 years | Slight/gross doctrine | Extends strict liability to "keepers and harborers" — not just the registered owner. Uses unique "slight/gross" comparative negligence rather than standard percentage-based fault. Government entity claims require 180-day written notice under SDCL § 3-21-2. |
| Tennessee dog bite laws | Mixed statute | Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-413 | 1 year | Modified (50% bar) | The only state with a "residential exclusion" — strict liability drops away if the bite happened on the owner's own residential or farm property. |
| Texas dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No statute — Marshall v. Ranne, 511 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1974) | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | No dog bite statute. Recovery requires proving the owner knew of the dog's dangerous propensities, or ordinary negligent handling. |
| Utah dog bite laws | Strict liability | Utah Code § 18-1-1 | 4 years | Modified (50% bar) | Four-year filing deadline — one of the longest of any strict liability state in the country. Utah's statute also has no express lawful-presence language, making the reach of strict liability potentially broader than states with that textual limitation. |
| Vermont dog bite laws | Strict liability | 20 V.S.A. § 3461 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Statute requires victim to have been "peaceably conducting himself or herself" in a lawful location — courts interpret this narrowly to exclude only deliberate provocateurs, not ordinary people in normal activity. Vermont's rural character means farm policies rather than homeowners insurance are common in agricultural-area cases. |
| Virginia dog bite laws | One-bite rule | No civil statute — common-law one-bite rule | 2 years | Pure contributory (any fault bars) | Two compounding disadvantages for victims: no strict liability statute (must prove owner's prior knowledge) plus pure contributory negligence (any fault bars entirely). Strict liability only available after a prior "dangerous dog" designation under § 3.2-6553. |
| Washington dog bite laws | Strict liability | RCW 16.08.040 | 3 years | Pure comparative | Broad strict liability, but provocation is a COMPLETE defense — and a fenced or posted property removes the implied consent that makes you lawfully present. |
| West Virginia dog bite laws | Strict liability | W. Va. Code § 19-20-13 | 2 years | Modified (51% bar) | Harboring theory expressly extends strict liability to landlords who knowingly allowed a dangerous dog on their rental property — a second defendant category not available in most strict liability states. |
| Wisconsin dog bite laws | Strict liability | Wis. Stat. § 174.02 | 3 years | Modified (51% bar) | Double damages are mandatory by statute — not discretionary — whenever the owner was notified or knew the dog had previously injured someone. The entire damages award doubles automatically once prior knowledge is established. |
| Wyoming dog bite laws | One-bite rule | Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-105 (no civil bite statute) | 4 years | Modified (51% bar) | Four-year filing deadline — the longest of any one-bite rule state on this site. Modified 51% bar means a plaintiff at exactly 50% fault still recovers half their damages, unlike neighboring one-bite states. |
South Dakota dog bite questions, answered
The questions South Dakota readers ask most often. General information, not legal advice.
Does South Dakota require proof the dog bit someone before?
No. SDCL § 40-34-1 creates strict liability for any person owning, keeping, or harboring a dog. No prior bite history or prior knowledge is required.
Who is liable under South Dakota's dog bite statute?
Any person "owning, keeping, or harboring" the dog — not just the registered owner. This can include house-sitters, caretakers, or landlords who knowingly permitted a dangerous dog on their property.
What is South Dakota's comparative fault rule for dog bites?
South Dakota uses the unique "slight/gross" doctrine rather than standard percentage-based comparative fault. Recovery is barred only if the plaintiff's negligence was "more than slight." In most strict liability cases, ordinary pre-attack conduct is characterized as "slight" at most, preserving recovery.
What is the filing deadline for a South Dakota dog bite case?
Three years from the date of injury under SDCL § 15-2-14. For minors, SDCL § 15-2-22 tolls during minority. Government entity claims require written notice within 180 days under SDCL § 3-21-2.
Key Takeaways for South Dakota Dog Bite Victims
South Dakota follows the One-Bite Rule standard — that determines whether you need to prove the owner's prior knowledge or can hold them liable automatically. Understanding which standard applies is the first step in knowing whether you have a viable claim.
Your filing deadline is fixed by state law. Missing it permanently closes your case, no matter how strong the evidence is. Start the clock from the date of the bite.
Document everything from day one — photos of the injury, medical records, the dog owner's name, and any witness contact details. That documentation is the single most controllable factor in how much you ultimately recover.
Ready to understand what your case may be worth? See South Dakota settlement amounts or connect with a South Dakota dog bite lawyer for a free case review.
Sources & References
- 📄SDCL § 40-34-1 (owner/keeper/harborer liability) — South Dakota primary statute (Justia)
- 📊CDC Dog Bite Prevention — national injury statistics and prevention guidance
- ⚖️American Bar Association — Tort, Trial & Insurance Practice